6.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Dornbirn.
7.  Upon criminal information laid by the applicant's wife, the Feldkirch Regional Court, on 9 February 1998, issued an arrest warrant against the applicant and a search warrant of his house. The applicant was suspected of having bodily assaulted and raped his wife, of having threatened her with a firearm, of having sexually assaulted his minor stepdaughter and of being in possession of child pornographic videos. The arrest warrant pointed out that there were reasons to assume that the applicant would react with “massive resistance” upon his arrest and would “try to escape prosecution”.
8.  On 9 February 1998 at around 23.45 hours six police officers of the special task force (Sondereinsatzgruppe) of the Altach gendarmerie entered the applicant's house. The officers were equipped with bullet-proof vests and shields. Further, they wore masks.
9.  The applicant submits that before the police entered his house, he had observed two suspicious persons, namely two of the officers, lingering around his parking. He had, therefore, armed himself with a kitchen knife However, when the police entered his house he immediately dropped the knife and held his hands up.
10.  The police officers forced the applicant to the ground and handcuffed him.
11.  The applicant submits that he had recognised the police officers on their emblems and had declared at once that he would not do anything and collaborate with the police. An officer allegedly replied to him that he would better do so otherwise he would be “picked off”.
12.  The applicant was subsequently laid on a table where he was stripped naked, searched for arms and dressed again. According to the applicant he was blindfolded during this time. Upon the shock of his arrest the applicant had urinated in his clothes. The police officers, despite the applicant's repeated requests, refused to let him change his clothes.
13.  The applicant submits that he was then again forced to the ground where he remained for about 15 minutes while some of the police officers searched his house. According to the applicant he was lying face down while a police officer pressed his knee on the back of his neck. This police officer allegedly told the applicant: “Don't move, otherwise you are dead.” He further submits that it was only when he was lifted up that, without giving any further reasons, he was told that he was arrested.
14.  The applicant was subsequently taken to the Altach police station where he was questioned until about 3.40 a.m. when he was released and taken back to his house.
15.  During all of the time of his arrest and detention the applicant remained handcuffed. Upon his request, however, the handcuffs were covered with a garment when leaving the house and were later attached in his front instead behind his back.
16.  On 10 February 1998 the applicant was again heard by the gendarmerie. On 11 February 1998 he prepared a note for the file in which he described the events at issue. He made, however, no reference to the fact that he had been blindfolded while stripped.
17.  The criminal proceedings against the applicant were discontinued on 25 June 1998.
18.  Meanwhile, on 3 March 1998, the applicant complained to the Vorarlberg Independent Administrative Panel (Unabhängiger Verwaltungs-senat) that the treatment he had suffered during his arrest and at the police station amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. He referred to his stripping by the police officers, the forcing to the ground while an officer pressed his knee against the back of his neck, the threats by the officers and the refusal to let him change his wet clothes. He finally complained that his handcuffing had not been necessary as he had been cooperative and had not shown any sign of resistance during all of the time.
19.  The Independent Administrative Panel held two hearings on 8 and 28 July 1998. It questioned the applicant, the director of the Vorarlberg Public Security Authority (Sicherheitsdirektor), the police officer who had headed the mission, another police officer who had assisted the applicant's arrest and the police officer who had questioned the applicant at the Altach police station. The police officers submitted that the applicant's wife had informed them that the applicant was violent, regularly consumed alcohol, was in possession of a fire-arm and had attended training for hand-to-hand combat for several years. He had allegedly received his wife several times with a weapon in his hand when she was entering the house. The applicant's wife had warned the police that the applicant “was up to do anything”.
20.  The two officers who had participated in the applicant's arrest confirmed that the applicant had been strip-searched. One officer explained that this had been done for their and the applicant's safety and in order to find the weapon. The applicant had been informed about the arrest and search warrant before being undressed. After the strip search the applicant had been seated on a sofa. The other officer stated that after the strip search the applicant had been laid and held on the floor. He denied, however, that somebody had approached the applicant's neck with his knee. Both officers confirmed that the applicant had not shown any sign of resistance and denied that the applicant had been threatened to “be picked off”. The officer who had heard the applicant at the police station submitted that he had not lessened the applicant's handcuffs because during some of the time he had been alone with the applicant at the police station.
21.  On 6 November 1998 the Independent Administrative Panel rejected the applicant's complaints. It found that the police officers had acted on the basis of an arrest warrant and had not exceeded the instructions of the investigating judge. The handcuffing of the applicant had been a necessary accompanying measure to the applicant's arrest because of the applicant's assumed resistance and escape. Against this background also the stripping of the applicant could not be regarded as excessive, especially as the applicant was suspected to be in the possession of weapons. The applicant's further complaints about the threatening, the holding down by pressing a knee against the back of his neck and the refusal to let him change his wet clothes were, even assuming that the applicant's allegations were true, of no relevance for the proceedings at issue as they concerned merely the way of proceeding during an authorised arrest and were attributable to the court. A review of lawfulness did not fall within the Independent Administrative Panel's competence.
22.  On 22 February 1999 the Constitutional Court declined to deal with the applicant's complaint.
23.  The applicant filed a complaint with the Administrative Court in which he repeated his submissions made before the Independent Administrative Panel. He further complained about the fact that the intervening officers had been masked.
24.  On 21 December 2000 the Administrative Court partly granted the applicant's complaint. It quashed the Independent Administrative Panel's decision insofar as the refusal of the police officers to let the applicant change his clothes was concerned and remitted the case back to the Panel for further examination.
25.  The Administrative Court dismissed the remainder of the applicant's complaint. It noted that the police officers had been confronted with a person suspected of severe crimes who was allegedly in possession of a firearm and was trained in hand-to-hand combat and who, furthermore, was holding a knife when meeting them. The handcuffing and complete stripping of the applicant and the alleged fixation and threatening by the police officers did not, therefore, exceed the instructions of the investigating judge. The court did not consider the applicant's detention for some four hours and his handcuffing during this period of time as excessive either. It noted in the latter regard that, despite the applicant's calm and cooperative behaviour, there was reason to believe that the applicant once liberated from his handcuffs would try to escape or use force. The Administrative Court finally noted that the applicant had not raised the complaint that the officers had been masked before the Independent Administrative Panel. This complaint was, however, inadmissible in any way as it did not concern an act of direct administrative authority and coercion (Ausübung unmittelbarer verwaltungsbehördlicher Befehls- und Zwangsgewalt).
26.  On 3 May 2001 the Vorarlberg Independent Administrative Panel found that the police officers' refusal to let the applicant change his wet clothes had not been covered by the instructions of the investigating judge who had ordered the applicant's arrest and constituted inhuman or degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. The applicant subsequently received compensation in the amount of approximately 2,400 euros.